Infrastructure bank advocates seek a new champion

In general, the Republican refrain has been to favor state-level infrastructure banks instead of a national one.

At the Commerce hearing, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) echoed this concern and reiterated the GOP mantra that states need more control of spending decisions, not less. “Having the flexibility to make decisions at the state level based on local priorities is vital when faced with limited dollars,” she said.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Critics also are concerned about creating a new federal bureaucracy to decide how to spend money, unmoored from being closely managed by appropriators. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) once likened a national infrastructure bank to “almost like creating a Fannie and Freddie for roads and bridges.”

For all the Republicans’ jitters, however, a national infrastructure bank enjoys support from one of their key backers — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. At a rollout for the Kerry-Hutchison bill, Chamber President Tom Donohue called a national infrastructure bank “a great place to start” and the $10 billion investment it envisioned “modest.”

Of course, fans of the idea still have a big champion in President Barack Obama, who has repeatedly included calls for a national infrastructure bank in his transportation budgets. But presidential budgets are aspirational, mostly messaging documents without Congress acting on what’s proposed. That makes congressional insiders necessary to push ideas through.

Obama first included a national infrastructure bank in his 2010 budget submission to Congress — it was proposed as a $5 billion bank that would give capital grants to state and local governments. It was proposed to be administered by an independent body, separate from political influence. However, the administration never put meat on the bones of that skeleton, and appropriators balked at funding it.

The following year’s budget reprised the idea, except this time, it was referred to as a “fund” instead of a bank, intended to hand out grants as well as loans for large-scale transportation projects providing a “significant economic benefit.” Also, the request was trimmed to $4 billion. Again, the administration didn’t follow up with a fleshed-out proposal.

In last year’s budget, Obama doubled down on his infrastructure bank proposal, requesting $30 billion over six years.

Obama also included an infrastructure bank plan in his American Jobs Act, a $10 billion proposal that was mostly modeled on the Kerry-Hutchison bill. Like that bill, Obama’s jobs act proposal would have provided loans and loan guarantees for infrastructure projects defined broadly — to include energy and water infrastructure. Both also proposed a governing body appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

The House has its infrastructure bank champion, too — Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.). But with the lower chamber controlled by Republicans, her repeated attempts to push through her own infrastructure bank legislation has been stymied. Still, a DeLauro aide said it’s a safe bet that she will be reintroducing her bill this year.